(c) A Human Rights Act based on dialogue (d) Jurisdiction and scope The Commission proposes a Human Rights Act built on the legislative dialogue model. Dialogue models incorporate a formal ‘dialogue’ between the executive, legislature and judiciary, with each branch of government sharing responsibility for respecting and protecting human rights. Dialogue models – like that used in the UK – also strongly focus on the ‘upstream’ arena of decision making and policy development. In accordance with this model, there would be a specific ‘positive duty’, like the one provided in the new Respect@Work legislative amendments, on the executive to act compatibly with human rights and to properly consider human rights when making decisions. Government entities, known as ‘public authorities’ would be bound by this duty. Parliament would be required to consider human rights when making and debating laws, through existing parliamentary scrutiny measures. The judiciary would be required to interpret laws in a way that is compatible with the Human Rights Act where it is reasonably possible to do so in light of Parliament’s intention. The judiciary would also review the executive’s compliance with the positive duty in relation to particular decisions and may issue remedies for breaches of the Human Rights Act. Unlike the state and territory models, and the UK model, the Commission’s model does not include provision for a formal ‘declaration of incompatibility’ by a federal court, given uncertainty about the constitutionality of such a provision. Such a declaration involves the courts formally indicating that a legislative provision is in breach of human rights. 54 A Human Rights Act should protect all people within Australia’s territory and all people subject to Australia’s jurisdiction without discrimination. This reflects the fundamental principle that human rights are universal and apply equally to all human beings. A Human Rights Act should include individuals under Australia’s ‘effective control’ overseas in order to fully implement Australia’s international obligations. In light of Australia’s constitutional structure and the existing Human Rights Act instruments in states and territories, the Commission proposes that a federal Human Rights Act should be restricted to federal laws and federal public authorities. The Human Rights Act instruments in place in Victoria, Queensland and the ACT should not be affected by a federal Human Rights Act. The remaining states and the Northern Territory should be encouraged to adopt a Human Rights Act that mirrors the federal Human Rights Act. (e) What rights should be included in a Human Rights Act? The key function of the Human Rights Act will be to coherently implement Australia’s international obligations domestically, and to reflect and codify fundamental common law rights. It would provide the ‘bedrock of rights’ in Australian law. The Commission’s proposed Human Rights Act includes the rights set out in Table 5. FREE & EQUAL: Revitalising Australia’s Commitment to Human Rights